The story was what folks in the business call “a good read,” and obviously a lot of folks with a keen interest in all things Blankenship and in the pending criminal case (myself included) were posting the link and commenting on it through various social media outlets.

There are other puzzling things about this story, though. One, for example, is that none of the more than 4,500 words in the piece is “Goodwin.” That’s right, no space was given to allow U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin to explain why his office pursued such an unusual route in investigating this particular mine disaster. And no mention of Goodwin’s gubernatorial aspirations, or what impact the entrance into the Democratic primary of another somewhat controversial coal operator, Jim Justice, might have on whether Booth Goodwin gets into the race. No mention either of what effect the delay of the trial from July to October might have on that decision.

And it’s not like the Times was trying to keep politics out of the story. They reported, for example:

A conviction of Mr. Blankenship would signal a shift in the balance of power in West Virginia and other major coal-producing states.

That’s from a section that seems to be suggesting that charging — and perhaps eventually convicting — Blankenship would only happen now, in the context of the decline of coal industry jobs. It’s hard to make a case that’s really what’s going on here. At least for now, coal’s decline has made the industry more politically powerful. Just check out the results of last year’s legislative and congressional elections. The politics of the “war on coal” are one reason Goodwin and his staff aren’t too upset about U.S. District Judge Irene Berger transferring the trial from the Beckley federal court division to Charleston, a move that takes it out of the heart of the coalfields and into a bigger, perhaps at least somewhat more politically diverse area.

But the part of the story that really just doesn’t hold up at all is this stuff about Blankenship not having much to say anymore:

Mr. Blankenship is free on a $5 million bond and restricted by a judge to southern West Virginia and parts of Kentucky, as well as trips to Washington to see his lawyers. He lives in the tiny community of Sprigg, W.Va, in a green house with white trim behind a locked metal gate. Considering his means — he was paid $17.8 million in 2009 in salary alone — the place is hardly grand. When I pulled up to the gate in March, the phone beside it was out of order, but perhaps some surveillance equipment worked. Within minutes, a man pulled up in a car and politely asked what I wanted. I said that I hoped to interview Mr. Blankenship. He took my contact information and said, “I know he’d like to tell you his story, but I’m not sure he can.”

As Mr. Blankenship prepares for his day in court, little is known about “the Defendant,” as he is called in filings. A judge gave him permission in late May to attend a professional dirt track race in Ohio, where his son was competing. But he was not allowed to travel to Las Vegas for the Christmas holiday. In denying that request, a judge cited “a significant risk of nonappearance at court proceedings in the future.”

First of all, to be clear, there is no “gag order” in this case — not anymore. While Blankenship’s defense lawyers may be telling him not to talk to New York Times reporters, there’s nothing legally preventing him from granting interviews, giving speeches, or continuing to blog.

At last count, Blankenship’s legal bills so far in this case were about $5.8 million. And that’s as of April 1. Blankenship might not be making the rounds on talk radio anymore, but it’s hard to believe he’s not getting his say.

Categories

Comments

A Blankenship conviction would signal a “shift in the balance of power in West Virginia”? As you suggest, Ken, that’s debatable.
Perhaps a more important shift, that this writer doesn’t seem to appreciate, was when the global investors in Central App and other coal reserves and their local compradors could see the writing on the wall (as much as twenty years ago), and supported “tough guys” like DB and now Murray who could execute a strategy of breaking unions and otherwise avoiding legacy costs like pensions, black lung, environmental costs, etc..
Today one might say with some reason that DB, for all his personal negatives, is also a bit of a scapegoat and fall guy. It appears that the folks in expensive suits in the office towers of Charleston and elsewhere who bankrolled DB’s right-wing rallies with Ted Nugent, and who did nothing to censure his secret vacations with a Supreme Court Justice in Monaco — and who above all profited mightily from his (alleged) criminal negligence — are doing just fine. T’was ever thus (?), and I don’t see much of a shift, but I’m not in New York.
I would not expect a NYT reporter to get much of this, but we here in WV can see some deeper shades of meaning. Thanks for the post.

Hello, was looking for an article or an orbituary that I heard the New York times was going to be doing on my Dad. His name was Dr. Donald Rasmussen, he died July 23, 2015, from Sophia West Virginia. He was very active with the coal miners and black lung. Can you help me find the article or has it not been done yet? Thanks for your time! Gavin McGranahan